it's 7pm in london. this is the world today with me, christian fraser. donald trump says elon musk has lost his mind he's no longer interested in saving their relationship. cheering the prime minister said scottish labour's surprise by-election win is a fantastic victory. as country call for changes to the european court of human rights, the man who oversees it admits it must adapt. we'll speak to him life. the uk confirms is looking to get the idea of digital id. -- look at. also coming up on the world today: david beckham set to be knighted for his services to

english sport. welcome to the world today, an hour of international news from the bbc. 24 hours on from that spectacular bust-up, president trump says he's 'not that interested' in making up with elon musk. there had been reports that efforts were under way to arrange some kind of reconciliation. but this morning, mr trump told a reporter from abc news that musk had "lost his mind" and he is moving on on with his presidency. of course, it's not as simple as that. reportedly, the row wiped has wipe $34 billion from elon musk's net worth. and the substance behind the fallout - musk's claim that government spending isn't

being cut fast enough - is very much a live issue. here's the president's former advisor steve bannon. the acts that president trump should be taking immediately, i think, when he threatens to take one of the big programmes out of spacex, president trump should tonight sign an executive order calling for the defence to production act and seize the spacex tonight before midnight. the us government should seize it. as for musk, well, he has pinned to the top of his timeline on xthe tweet he sent out yesterday, asking whether it is now time to create a new political party in america, to represent what he calls the 80% in the middle. a reminder, the midterm elections - hugely consequential for donald trump's presidency - are only 18 months away. elon musk has openly opposed trump's "one big beautiful bill" that's before the senate at the moment. i asked our north america editor sarah smith about whether he's likely to win popular support for opposing the bill.

oh, well, there are two different things here. there was a quick snap poll was conducted by yougov for the washington post, and among republicans it had 82% saying that they supported donald trump over elon musk. so, in the wider electorate, i don't think donald trump has much to worry about, not among his supporters anyway. but getting that big, beautiful bill, that spending bill through congress is a different matter. that's where it's the votes of representatives and senators that matter, and that's where elon musk's chequebook comes in. he can use his money to threaten lawmakers, saying that, for instance, that he would fund a challenger to run against them at the next elections. that's a threat a lot of them take very seriously because remember, he owns x, he has a loud voice on social media as well as a very, very deep pockets. so, in the past, he has used this threat to get people to support what donald trump wanted. he could equally well do it to try and tank the spending bill that he is so vehemently opposed to. so that's a real political danger for donald trump, although he's got a few cards to play as well. he did threaten yesterday to cancel all of elon musk's

government contracts, which are worth billions and billions of dollars. so, there are major threats on both sides here with certainly donald trump not looking as though he's ready to deescalate. sarah smith there at the white house. let's go back to those comments from steve bannon. but would that mean? lori garver is former deputy administrator of nasa. thank you for joining us. how reliant is the us on spacex and elon musk? extremely reliant. they've done a fabulous job innovating and allow us to cross just space transformation. the starley constellation is keeping military safe and informed -- the starley. -- starlink. they

are extremely reliant. he said on x last night he would start unwinding the dragon, and then walked back very quickly. why? i assume people saw his leadership and first of all, it's not realistic and frankly, i don't think threatening cancellation by the president is. it's really not just reckless, but an abuse of power to do so. these were won the regular channels. doubling down, you bet. i don't think either the president or elon musk long-term is helped by this argument. the us itself, i don't think, is in danger of

losing these assets immediately. but it is troublesome, it is embarrassing and it does highlight the situation relating to a company that is not controlled by the board or shareholders, but an individual who is very volatile. you seem to be tilting at the fact that he's been allowed one way or another to monopolise space travel. that's largely because the federal government didn't want to be picking up the tab. it would be expensive if donald trump decided he wanted to take the contract off it. that's right. i was at nasa when we made these decisions. the private sector has been very involved in the us space programme. turning over space transportation was something that we thought was a very reasonable thing to do. we put

in the competitive system with two providers and because boeing hasn't been able to fulfil their transportation of astronauts fully, that's what puts us in this position with spacex. i'm almost out of time, but the billionaire in commercial astronaut gerrit isaac was supposed to be heading up to nasa, and he was pulled at the weekend. do you think that was partly behind the row? i think it was very upsetting to elon that the day he left washington, gerrit isaac men had very much heralded and supported, no money was pulled. the committee had already had the hearing. it's really unprecedented for that to have happened, and i do think that really sparked elon's upping the ante in the

big beautiful bill. that unfortunately unraveled into what you are reporting on now. really interesting, thank you very much indeed. for months in the uk, the political weather has been made by the insurgent reform uk party who've jumped in the polls, winning a westminster by-election. it's put the prime minister sir keir starmer and his labour party under some pressure. last night, though, a bit of good news for labour. they defied the odds to take win the hamilton, larkhall and stonehouse by-election for the scottish parliament. they beat the favourites, the scottish national party, by just over 600 votes. reform uk came third, pushing the conservatives into fourth. let's go live to westminster our political correspondent, jack fenwick, who has been judging reaction. i suppose that's a demonstration that labour still have ground game to eke out a win,

albeit narrow. one of the interesting things that we've seen is just that it is in england, keir starmer and his party has been trying to say politics is becoming a two horse race between them and reform, but we've seen the snp trying to adapt a similar strategy. that was a tactic used by the snp, and a lot of the polls suggest snp were on favourite to win. labour have won and that's quite difficult for the snp to make that argument. clearly, labour will be very happy to have defied the polls, as anas sawar put it. nevertheless, the conservatives will be particularly worried. they went from 18% to just 6%. i think it's further evidence that reform are in some ways in the

country replacing the conservatives on the right of politics. but i don't think they will be disappointed coming third because they did still gained quite a lot of votes in previous. but this is something of a suggestion perhaps that actually, reform are inching further in scotland. i think what it shows is across the country, which is politics is more fractured than it has been. to kemi badenoch says she's getting better at taking over... she's been talking to chris mason. let's have a listen. let me put a few things to you. the worst general election

result in the party's history. pulverised in the english local elections. 54 net losses of councillors since the local elections a month ago. 6% in hamilton. have you hit rock bottom yet? chris, what i'm saying is that the party has been in a difficult decision, and it's not because of anything that's happening now. could it get worse though? it is because of decisions that have, you know, that have been taken over several years. it is my job to fix that. and i always said it was going to be difficult, and in some cases, before things get better, they do get worse. if you have a car that's broken down and you're in a race, you need to take time to fix it. tomorrow is not the election. what i'm trying to do is make sure that people have a clear message that the conservatives are delivering. today, she said she was conducting a review into whether the uk should leave the european -- lead the european commission on human rights. she thinks she's losing to reform. why doesn't she come out and say they're leaving? it's interesting, when kemi badenoch

ran to be the conservative leader after that disastrous general election, a big part of her platform was that she wasn't going to have any policies. that's the sort of thing that she stuck with. i think today is inching towards starting to make some of those decisions. she's not saying they're going to do this, they're saying look at whether they will do that. part of it is a recognition that this stuff is pretty complicated. some people are trying to say it will be easy to leave the echr. i think this is probably her saying this, it does come with bits of legislation that you might have to get alongside this. i think that is part of the reason why she's doing that. i think the rest of it is just buying more time. i think she sees the job trying to

clean up the tory brand. part of that is the criticism we see her and the shadow chancellor giving liz truss. they think her many budget... kemi badenoch thinks it's only after you clean up the brand that you should start putting forward some ideas for the next election, which is still four years away. thank you for that, jack. it has been 77 years since the congress of europe first sat to devise a system that would preserve life and human dignity. after the horrors of the second world war. britain the first country to ratify the european convention on human rights, in 1951, and eight years later a court was created to interpret and uphold its provisions. but today we live in a very different world,

and critics argue the convention is out of date, incompatible with the vast challenges posed by illegal migration. last month, nine eu countries called for the court to be reined in. it would appear the man who oversee the convention and the court sees reason in that argument. alain bercet, the secretary general of the council of europe, has called for a debate on rewriting the convention with "no taboos". alain bercet joins us tonight from berne in switzerland. secretary general, welcome to the programme. you might think you. what are you proposing? first, i just want to say i am really happy for your invitation this evening. this d-day is a very important day for all european continent. i want to be clear - i am not rooting for reform because reforms are not needed. no taboos means an honest, political discussion, true dialogue, and not pressure on

the court. i think we have room for this. we have every country to have a discussion. but if you don't have faith in the court, then you need to do something about it because eventually, people lose trust in it. we can also see that 75 years is quite long time. the connection was very solid in the old-time. this convention has endured the war, political shocks, 75 years. i think in this moment, where we are, it is important to have a clear orientation, to have a strong and stable... at the same time, there's a reasoning for

political discussions. we have room for this, and i also have on record that the uk does not write the policy. the court's critics would cite examples of foreign, criminal, some here in the uk, fighting removal and winning and staying and posing a threat to citizens. would you agree that the judges and straz borough has gone beyond the remit? there is a convention and this is a political decision. it was a very strong political decision in tough times. it injured similar situations, and we must protect the judicial system and the courts. if there is a

possibility to have a political discussion, then we need to have this discussion in the political event, but not to put in question the independence of the judiciary, because that's a very important element for all her institutions, and by the way, protecting human rights for all of us. it was created for human rights. sorry to interrupt, but you were twice president of switzerland. the court ruled that switzerland was in violation of human rights because it wasn't doing enough to combat climate change. that's a decision that is reserved for the government. surely, that's not within the court's remit. you know about this decision, and that is a political rule for the committee of ministers. that's the very strong system that we

have, and it is exactly this discussion it is possible to have in the committee of ministers, but not putting in question the independence of the court. you can have a look at the number of decisions that the courts took in the last ten or 15 years and just have a look at the number of decisions. if you look at the numbers, it is more than we have today. what would you say to kemi badenoch in the conservative party on this debate from withdrawing completely. what will be the implication of that? first of all, i just want to recall that we helped create a convention. it would be reprieve in one

sense. it would mean no seat of the council of europe. the most important thing, it will mean a week uk voice on ukraine. please never forget this element. the only international... that's a very simple point at this moment. obviously, the council of europe is separate to european union, but i'm keen to understand the implications. she says we need three or four months to understand fully what a decision to withdraw would mean. tell us what are your view -- what would your view be? what would it mean for new relationships with the european union. ? the european union joining the convention would be

a very important step. it will allow us to have really good organisation about what we mean in our continent and what we want for support. what with the relationship between the european union and britain look like if we withdrew from the court? i think the european union, exactly doing the opposite. we are exactly having this discussion. it would mean probably not more to have convergence of our continent just to avoid that. we saw what would happen in the second world war. with the subsidiary, it is four thirds of the conflict to decide the

decision. if it is a problem, to converge particularly. thank you for joining us.

welcome back. the labour government here in the uk has confirmed it's looking at the idea of digital id cards. the environment minister steve reed said the minister were looking to take actions to reduce illegal migration. britain is the only country in europe without a national id system. we are joined by kirsty innes, director of technology at labour together, a british think tank closely associated

with the labour party. they've been working on proposals for a so called britcard. did i read that properly? thank you for being with us. but with the card look like? hi, christian. it will look like a card in a digital form. you would use it to prove anything about yourself, and you should focus on using this ge prove you have the right to live and work in the country. tapping against the phone and... it won't stop shopping for government services? it could well be that. i don't think he would try to deliver that in one go. i think he would start by looking at this case because we think it's such a situation where there is level of the concern. we have around 1 million people living and

working in the uk and british systems because they don't have id, can't prove the will be targeted by home-office enforcement. you think this would solve the problem of the black marketing jobs? i think it's it fundamental part of any fund middle strategy. this would make it easier for law-abiding employers to do these checks. there's about 16 different documents that employers might be required to check. with britt card, you will have it instantly. it will be the same system for everywhere to use. could it be forged? no, it would be much less easy, but we would ask people to carry around a... often to make copies of that.

when you say it's more secure, i'm reading a similar see have watched though mike lost the details of 100,000 people -- hmrc. people will be sceptical. security will be top priority to make sure we get this right from the system. the current system is flawed already and not doing this doesn't mean you have security. there are already offers to make them more secure. if we're going to do that, let's make the data usable and make people's lives easier. would be compulsory? it would be compulsory for people who want to sign the unemployment contract or the tenancy agreement. once it's been made to everyone that needs it. has your support from

number ten gone down? i can't speak for the government, but as for something that can beat the government priorities, it could eventually help people access health care more easily. wouldn't roll out in this parliament hello yes, it could be, if we get confirmation now. keir sd ynys, thank you very much for being with us. we are going to take a short break. on the other side, we'll talk about the situation in ukraine -- kirsty innes. sanctions that the european union have been talking about. they're not getting much support from donald trump at this moment. do stay with us.

you're watching bbc news.